Transaxillary Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Using a Simplified Endoscopic Approach: Indications, Cosmetic Outcomes and Technical Refinements

BACKGROUND

The increasing demand for further aesthetic outcome improvement in implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) leads to major novelties, including endoscopic and robotic NSM with the aim to limit scar visibility. In this paper, we report our experience with a novel and simplified surgical approach-single-axillary-incision non-endoscopic NSM and node surgery followed by an endoscopic DTI breast reconstruction-by focusing on reconstructive indications, technical refinements and aesthetic outcomes.

METHODS

Between June 2016 and October 2019, 14 women underwent this novel technique using definitive anatomical silicone gel filled, totaling 20 breasts. Reconstructive evaluation methods were clinically and photography-based assessment. Breast-Q has been used to quantify patient satisfaction. Feasibility and safety data are also provided.

RESULTS

The average follow-up time was 11 months (range 3-42 months). No local-regional recurrence occurred during follow-up. Median operation time was 340 min; mean hospital stay was 4.1 days. The average mastectomy specimen weight was on average 139 g (ranging from 98 to 182 g). The average implant volume for the reconstructed side was 306 cc (ranging from 165 to 550 cc). Patients' satisfaction was high to very high.

CONCLUSION

Authors' experience suggests that non-endoscopic transaxillary NSM, node surgery and endoscopic direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a valid, oncological safe, aesthetically sound scarless option in breast cancer patients with small to moderate breast size. It should represent the incision of choice in patient with previous breast surgery with scars that may compromise flap/NAC vascularity using traditional NSM incisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Less micrometastatic risk related to circulating tumor cells after endoscopic breast cancer surgery compared to open surgery

BACKGROUND

Increase of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has been found after surgery for various carcinomas but not confirmed for breast cancer, and whether endoscopic surgery confers identical effect to CTCs as open surgery did is not clear. The present study aimed to investigate whether CTCs increase after surgery and whether there is a difference between open surgery and endoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Pre- and postoperative peripheral blood (5 mL) obtained from 110 female patients with operable breast cancer (53 underwent endoscopic surgery, 57 underwent open radical mastectomy). Quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR was done to detect cytokeratin 19 mRNA-positive CTC. CTC detection rate, cell number and the increase after surgery (named micrometastasis) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the open group, CTC positive rate before and after surgery were 22.81 and 33.33%; median CTC number before and after surgery were 0.21 and 0.43 and 17 patients (29.82%) had increased micrometastatic risk. In the endoscopic group, CTC positive rate before and after surgery were 24.53 and 28.30%; median CTC number before and after surgery were 0.27 and 0.36, and 8 patients (15.09%) had increased micrometastatic risk. There was a suggestive higher postoperative CTC detection rate and CTC number and a significant increased postoperation micrometastatic risk was observed in the open group compared to the endoscopic group (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 1.05-9.65) after adjustment for clinicopathologic characteristics.

DISCUSSION

CTC tends to increase in breast cancer patients after surgery, and the micrometastatic risk was higher for open surgery compared to endoscopic surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR-OCH-10000859, 24 April 2010).